Oops I accidentally the whole civil society...

LuckyLloyd · 14-02-2012 12:41PM

Bambi wrote: »

You think the IT is a paper of record? has'nt been for a long time. They have theor own agenda and they like to push it :eek:

It certainly used to be, but the merits of an individual paper are a side issue in many ways as far as this debate goes. I wrote "Irish Times type paper" for a reason. Whether it be the Irish, New York, LA, whatever Times - the existence of a respected newspaper capable of producing objective, thoroughly sourced and well fact checked articles is a very important component of a healthy society. The current absence of same is a terrible shame, and I don't believe Tom (or anyone really) has addressed how that problem will be solved by the coming media landscape.

nyarlothothep · 14-02-2012 12:49PM

Every paper has line, just like a person it has its own set of values which it will promote. When someone talks about objective reporting I feel that they're talking about how much that paper conforms to their values, if it didn't then it would be biased or whatever. I love the current chaos of the internet. Its so full of bias and agendas which aren't backed up with the "authority" of tradition and institutionalisation that it should in theory encourage people to make their own minds up and generally distrust what comes from the mouths of others. The interactivity factor also facilitates this, you hear different opinions, disagreements with the author in the comment section and so forth. There are degrees of objectivity (Fox news is in fictional lala land) but everything reported by someone or an organisation made up of people should be approached with bs detectors on full standby.

Wibbs · 14-02-2012 12:54PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

To put it another way - someone like yourself, a self confessed lover of journalism who was in on the ground floor of an ever growing new media platform is going to be far better placed to sift through the wealth of information and disseminate the good from the bad from the downright ugly. You are well placed to become your own journalist.../... But that isn't the case, and the elimination of professional journalists and structured fact checking processes is far from ideal.

Get out of my head you bollix!

Especially the above. The problem isn't the information, it's the sifting and editing of that information. Indeed the apparent overload of that information just adds to the problem and people being people will tend to look for someone who as already done the work for them. The new editors as it were. And who will they be? I suspect people being people again we may end up with more of an echo of old media than we might expect. The fact that the Daily Mail website is the most read/visited newspaper site in the world is food for thought.

Not wishing to sound old and such

but I have also noticed a difference in my peers compared to younger generations. Though I've a couple of years on you D, we're vaguely in the same generation. Kinda the last generation that grew up on slower print and other media. More to the point a generation that grew up alongside the interweb and are a little more discerning about information that may flow from it. It would be my humble and obviously a generalisation, that those following generations can often be less discerning. They've not had to be as it's apparently at their fingertips, a google click away(and who's googling google?) and popularity counts. The higher the position on a search page, the more it seems accepted as fact. Many won't bother their bottoms clicking to page two. So the editors in this "new media" are already here, just not so obviously.

Like LL said

In my view, it is dangerous to assume that everyone has such ability. And I know that's an unpopular thing to say - everyone thinks they are smarter than they are, sharper than they are, etc.

Or as one wag commented, everyone thinks they have a book in them, but that's where it should stay. For me 90%+ of blogs fit into this category.

Another trend I've noted overall on discussion sites (and even here on Boards), is a drop off in the "links or GTFO" response when another poster is stating "facts". That used to be almost a constant. Now if the poster has enough gravitas, by dint of post count or authority it's usually just taken as read. I certainly see more dubious "facts" than I used to. More opinion dressed up as fact. Blogs are a charm for this stuff and it seems no barrier to popularity or click stats.

As for exposing wrongdoing in the world, that's gonna get interesting. If I have actual evidence of wrongdoing by an individual, business or political entity and I tried to post it on Boards, how long would it last as a post? Rightfully too as Boards would be right in the legal firing line and the costs involved are too much to take such a risk, even if it turns out to be provable and truthful. Lawyers pockets would be lined along that path to truth. Blogs have been successfully sued and bloggers ruined financially.

This is an even bigger worry in Ireland where traditionally the media was in thrall to vested interests more than it wasn't. The new media is really in the firing line and is in danger of being declawed. Just look at Mr Sherlock and his little bit of legislation. I'll be genuinely shocked if it doesn't go through, in spite of the valid protests. It's a done deal and always has been IMHO. How this and other moves by various vested interests will affect the landscape is up in the air. Hopefully not too much.

Zzippy · 14-02-2012 12:54PM

gbee wrote: »

The Cork Media wear rose coloured glasses and it's always sunny. Despite empty houses at opening nights, empty halls for protests the following days headlines or sub heading "Crowds Flock to ...."

But somewhere online will be a report with the truth. The GAA also has enjoyed a special place, no photos of injuries or fights or blood. Well that seems to have changed recently or else that photographer never got the memo.

On-line is not as great a media as people think, advertising is often counted as click through but the real effect is in sales. Also onliine advertising can be killed by ad-blockers and filters and such.

I was once banned from a site for using an ad-blocker so that was circumvented by coming in from another country and running ad-blocker there. There is a huge groundswell of protest against online ads, there are invasive and delay the distribution of stories and news so people use other sources to get the feeds they want instantly, some site reload the ads on every refresh ~ ads or on the phone too, so it's really a bridge too far, far too invasive, in the end it's the print media and possibly the good old glossy magazine that will return a better deal long run.

The trick is to get people to go looking for your site or looking for you newspaper. The success of two free newspapers in Cork alone could suggest that some issues that are mentioned in the article are in error as to the cause.

There will always be a market for local news - many people are more interested in what goes on in their own locality than in international or national news. Court reports, sports reports, local gossip which are too small or mundane for national media will be covered in local media and attract a fairly loyal readership. Especially if its free. Doesn't matter if its a few days old. Advertisers also realise this, hence the success of free papers, not just in Cork - look at the Advertiser group around the country for another example.
National media, on the other hand...

Morlar · 14-02-2012 01:00PM

It has been a very long time since I had the feeling that established media in Ireland were meeting their responsibilities. Not so sure that 'new' digital media is filling that gap to be honest.

14-02-2012 01:19PM

I get all my news from AH and chicken gut readings.

I dont need some fancy schmancy "Bleurgh" or sitch to keep me in knowledge.

Now, if anyone wants me I will be in your ma's bedroom.

*drops mic and leaves stage with one fist in the air*

DeVore · 14-02-2012 01:25PM

Morlar wrote: »

It has been a very long time since I had the feeling that established media in Ireland were meeting their responsibilities. Not so sure that 'new' digital media is filling that gap to be honest.

And that's a very valid point... The old is dying before the new has grown up sufficiently to replace it. But that's a matter of time and in part, education of the reader I feel.

For Lloyd, I offer the counter point of the Independents MAGDA story and the Times' pieces on Sherlocks law (Sherlock vs the teenager) and their disgrace handling of Kate Fitzgeralds last piece. Is this what you want me to put my trust in?

Yes Karlin Lillington did an excellent piece on Sherlock yesterday, one I commented on and retweeted. But stab me with a 6 inch blade and pull it out 3 inches, don't expect me to thank you

Those piece of blather (I won't call them journalism. That's an insult to real journos) were exposed/corrected by online commentators.

Newspapers need to give up on the adrenaline rush of "the scoop" ... How can they possibly compete with an organisation with millions of citizen reporters all over the world, arm with the latest tech and broadcasting to everyone on the spot. You can't hope to beat it to the punch. So the alternative is to go deeper into the story. Get quality analysis a day or two later but higher value. I'll buy that for a dollar! Get investigative journalists back out hunting down big news that blogs and websites can't cover for lack of time and money... They are mostly amateurs after all.

Storyful is Mark Littles baby and we had a really good long chat before he launched when he explained the idea to me. At the time I thought it was a great idea but hard to pull off... He's done it with aplomb IMHO. It's a good model!

The new models need to mature though. It's not there yet but it will get there when the money shifts dramatically and the trusted brands arise. Already Maman Poulet is considered a very good source in some quarters of Irish politics. More like her will arise. The BBC and The Guardian have both transferred the trust in their brands to their online presences...

hullaballoo · 14-02-2012 01:29PM

The progression from "old" to "new" media has been envisaged by the "old" media for a long time. There are lots of films, novels etc. that clearly point to a future where technology and 'puters are a mainstay of civil society. So there's no shock here.

What the traditional media hadn't thought of is that they would be unable to capitalise as readily as they had expected on the move to electronic news sources. They essentially overestimated the public's respect for journalism and never thought that we might actually trust other sources to relay current affairs.

Personally, I've witnessed events that have subsequently become the subjects of articles in even reputable newspapers. In many of those cases, the reports did not reflect the actual events as they happened. This is commonplace, and as a result, people are more inclined to take a number of views on board and try and discern the truth for themselves. That's what I do anyway.

The other side of the coin is that the people who are speaking out so vociferously against the Internet simply don't understand what's happening. The offline view of the Internet is outdated: people who use the Internet are a minority of tech nerds and loners who want to protect their isolated bubble. Eternal September began in 1993. The days of Internet users being an elite group of hackers (black or white hats) are gone. There are now generations of people who use the Internet all the time.

The difficulty seems to be that politicians, traditional journalists and even traditional industry leaders across a gamut of sectors are predominantly outside of the online generations. They unfalteringly maintain an entitlement to privacy and other "rights" that are incompatible with what is clearly becoming modernity. They refuse to adapt. They want to try and control this space because it looks like it's affecting the world they live in.

I don't worry about this in the long term because eventually, it will be the online generations who call the shots. At some point, traditional media outlets will realise that they cannot dictate to the public what the public's demands are. The supply has to shift, or the price has to shift.

They can battle on with their outmoded views and they can fight their one-sided war against technology. It's a bit like maintaining the point of view that the world was created 4,000 years ago. Good luck.

DeVore · 14-02-2012 01:29PM

kylith wrote: »

OP: you misspelled your blog in your first post. Methinks you could use an editor.

An error I have corrected now... Thank you for making another point for me in passing

Doc Ruby · 14-02-2012 01:30PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It is true that 'old media' is a pale shadow of what it once was.

Old media was always a biased and one sided platform though, right from its beginnings, I don't think it ever had a golden age. The Irish Times and Irish Independent for example both had their foundation as platforms for their owners' religion and politics, as did most newspapers.

The democratisation of the news may have made grammar and spelling a casualty, but for the first time ever both sides of the picture can be seen clearly and easily by anyone that cares to look.

Dyr · 14-02-2012 01:43PM

hullaballoo wrote: »

Personally, I've witnessed events that have subsequently become the subjects of articles in even reputable newspapers. In many of those cases, the reports did not reflect the actual events as they happened.

Likewise, which is why I find it bizarre when people are so willing to accept "papers of record" or respected broadcasters versions of events. Every time that I've been close to something that made headlines I found that what happened and what was reported were very different creatures.

texidub · 14-02-2012 01:52PM

There is no inherent reason why an old media journo should be considered more authoritative than an online journalist.

The debate over quality and trust is a bit false (I believe it was started by old media in an attempt to distinguish themselves as 'professionals' rather than 'citizens'.. such pomp! lol)

But getting away from that debate new media delivers faster and is *way* more info-packed. Newspaper technology just can't compete with interactive multimedia. And they shouldn't want to! If they were really concerned about getting as much information out to their readers as possible, they would be going to every effort to integrate new media technologies into their processes. But no.. that would be a step to far for some aul stick-in-the-muds.

Also, on the Net it's possible to find live streams and other data sources that are unbiased and unmediated by any journalist ('professional' or merely 'citizen': D ).

When it all settles down, new media is going to be blend of old media reinvented (because people still trust entities like the Grauniad and The Times and the NYT etc... they just want more of the same content quicker and in more depth) and new media sites doing pretty much what old media is/was/and will be doing (HuffPost, Wired, Gawker, Gizmodo etc.)

The two sides are fighting each other, wrestling for dominance, but I honestly think these are merely teething pains as new media gets used to having some responsibility and old media gets used to losing some of its' responsibility.

Dyr · 14-02-2012 01:57PM

texidub wrote: »

There is no inherent reason why an old media journo should be considered more authoritative than an online journalist.

How about if the old media journo has a long standing and mutually beneficial relationship with many TD's...surely that makes him more authorative

I think thats what minister rabbite was on about...

Liam Byrne · 14-02-2012 02:04PM

Seachmall wrote: »

It's a Meme.

Dev is all hip and stuff.:pac:

"I Accidentally…" is a catchphrase, internet slang, and trolling mechanism

Are we meant to report DeVore ? :eek:

texidub · 14-02-2012 02:08PM

Bambi wrote: »

How about if the old media journo has a long standing and mutually beneficial relationship with many TD's...surely that makes him more authorative

I think thats what minister rabbite was on about...

Over the long term a mutually beneficial relationship may evolve, but the language involved sounds very like the antithesis of good journalism to me.

Anyway, I think that stuff can be overblown. A good journalist can arrive into town and get in most anywhere. It's part of the job.

Xios · 14-02-2012 02:09PM

Bump for some effort, more people should read this before it get's lost in page 2.

Morlar · 14-02-2012 02:15PM

Bambi wrote: »

How about if the old media journo has a long standing and mutually beneficial relationship with many TD's...surely that makes him more authorative

I think thats what minister rabbite was on about...

The contribution of an army of 'citizen reporters' posting on the internet can't fairly be compared with the value of a skilled journalist.

To give an example of what I mean, (random) R.Fisk would be a reporter onsite, observing events, attending briefings, interviewing govt. personnel and then comparing that version to the reality on the ground by interviewing non-govt and opposition people, citizens and any relevant informed individuals.

This is from a perspective of aiming for the historical truth which is not necessarily politically convenient.

It is a requirement that this is done with an awareness of the history of the place and the cultural context to the story (which can be complex).

Compare all of that (admittedly idealised version of reality) to ill educated, misinformed, non-politically neutral, in fact often politically-aligned 'citizen army' posting on blogs or twitter etc.

I am able to think for myself, most people are, however there is not the time to invest in each ongoing news development either in Ireland or around the globe.

There is a similarity here to the way wikipedia is open to systematic abuse and has become an alternative to actual, substantive reading in many cases.

You need capable, trustworthy, intelligent, impartial, skilled journalists on the ground who are not afraid of lobby / advocacy groups / political interests to post the truth as they see it. Behind them you need trustworthy independent media organisations with deep pockets to fund all of this whether through advertising or licence fees.

I think the direction things are developing towards (as regards traditional media vs new media in the foreign news context) is a place where there is an increasing shortfall, a missing stage in the processing of information.

In one (idealised) scenario above you have a professional experienced Journalist who has worked their way up from local paper reporting supermarket openings to a foreign correspondent for a serious media outlet. In the other scenario you have a random yahoo posting 'I can hear gunshots up the street !!!! ' type of white noise which is of limited value. What we could end up with out of all of this is a myriad of digital information sources which will spring up around any given story being selectively filtered by freshly graduated-never-been-abroad correspondents sitting in studios in london.

There is an inbetween between 'citizen reporters' and correspondents. For example the blog of someone like Constantin Gurdgiyev, who is free to post informed economic analysis. I really think those kinds of potentially valuable sources are very rare. Consumers of information are then left with the task of gravitating towards random disconnected sources of information.

LuckyLloyd · 14-02-2012 02:22PM

DeVore wrote: »

For Lloyd, I offer the counter point of the Independents MAGDA story and the Times' pieces on Sherlocks law (Sherlock vs the teenager) and their disgrace handling of Kate Fitzgeralds last piece. Is this what you want me to put my trust in?

Yes Karlin Lillington did an excellent piece on Sherlock yesterday, one I commented on and retweeted. But stab me with a 6 inch blade and pull it out 3 inches, don't expect me to thank you

Those piece of blather (I won't call them journalism. That's an insult to real journos) were exposed/corrected by online commentators

A) I have no interest in defending the indefensible. In 2011 I happened to have first hand knowledge of two national stories and what ended up in the Times and Independent (and other places) was riddled with basic factual errors that a journalist who had spent half a day on either making phonecalls could have clarified. There is no media source in the country at present that could be considered a definitive record of the day;

Blogging or "new media" ideally would play that very role. People with niche interests, qualifications and passion delving into areas that they have indepth feeling for and using the new communication platforms to broadcast superior detail / clarification / etc. But you need a starting point, some place responsible for doing the grunt work on everything and trying to attain a standard of sorts. 'New media' (hate that term

) should be a compliment to a quality fourth estate, not a replacement for it. Or if it is to replace it - it needs to be something very, very different to what it is right now;

As it happens, I totally agree with you in terms of delayed analysis being well worth paying for. I still buy the Economist for that reason, I don't need to know about something happening three seconds after it takes place. The vast majority of things are still news five days later, and it may very well take five days to put together a proper indepth summation of an issue. I'll wait (and I'll pay!!) that few days or weeks for quality information.

TheZohanS · 14-02-2012 02:26PM

I recently had the fortunate experience of being enlightened (or educated) as to what evil Traditional Media is currently conspiring to unleash upon the world. I would now like to share that experience with you. Let's review the errors in Traditional Media's statements in order. First, the confluence of denominationalism and propagandism in Traditional Media's insinuations ensures a swirling river of discontent upon which Traditional Media so peremptorily rides. Sure, the things Traditional Media does are wrong, pushy, contentious, blasphemous—you name it. But someone has to be willing to deal summarily with moonstruck authoritarians. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us.

If I am correct that Traditional Media's squibs are saturated with the grumpy rhetoric that will unquestionably marginalize dissident voices, then its behavior might be different if it were told that it is the type of organization that would shoot you just to see if its gun worked. Of course, as far as Traditional Media is concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that it never tires of telling us that it is a refined organization with the soundest ethics and morals you can imagine. That's why I feel obligated to respond by reminding everyone that all the deals Traditional Media makes are strictly one-way. Traditional Media gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations.

When you tell Traditional Media's helots that Traditional Media's apologists compress Traditional Media's epithets into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed, they begin to get fidgety and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that it twists every argument into some sort of "struggle" between two parties. Traditional Media unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what it claims gives it the right to replace our natural soul with an artificial one.

If there is one truth in this world, it's that Traditional Media plans to peddle fake fears to the public. It has instructed its functionaries not to discuss this or even admit to its plan's existence. Obviously, Traditional Media knows it has something to hide. This in mind, I would like to bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth. Having endured countless hours of listening to Traditional Media's bad-tempered, manipulative gibber, I can say with confidence that there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Traditional Media announcing some frightful thing every few weeks.

In many ways, Traditional Media must sense its own irremediable inferiority. That's why it is so desperate to use paid informants and provocateurs to make bargains with the devil; it's the only way for it to distinguish themselves from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Traditional Media also realized that now that I've been exposed to its scribblings I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps if five years ago I had described an organization like Traditional Media to you and told you that in five years it'd devise unenlightened scams to get money for nothing, you'd have thought me fatuous. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how if you can go more than a minute without hearing it talk about Machiavellianism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. To close, let me accentuate that if we hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse we shall not only survive Traditional Media's attacks; we shall prevail.

LuckyLloyd · 14-02-2012 02:32PM

What society likes from its media and what it needs are two very different things.

Society likes:

- Instant content
- Multimedia content
- Opinion slants on said content
- An ability to quickly throw their two cents in on an event

Society Needs:

- Watchdogs with the tools and time to take politicians and business to task;
- Access!! (your favourite blogger probably doesn't have this!

)
- An objective standard;
- Fact checking and broad sourcing;
- Journalists with the tenacity to stick on something when it isn't immediately news so that the finer detals are teased out;

Doc Ruby · 14-02-2012 02:39PM

TheZohan wrote: »

So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how if you can go more than a minute without hearing it talk about Machiavellianism

Oo-er, when proper nouns are getting verbed, you know the kids gloves are off.

hullaballoo · 14-02-2012 04:00PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oo-er, when proper nouns are getting verbed, you know the kids gloves are off.

http://e.images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/14577132.jpg

RichieC · 14-02-2012 04:26PM

Great read and bang on the money. As far as I'm concerned the dinosaur media is just a means for the monied elite to manufacture a mass opinion that suits their agenda.

It's no wonder they are so amenable to the recording industries demands for cracking down on copyright as it will give them the tools they need to eventually crack down on dissenting voices on-line.

Keep up the good work, Devore.

ScumLord · 14-02-2012 04:43PM

The bottom line is that the internet has changed everything. Our old ways of doing things and making money just don't really make sense in a digital age. Companies are desperately trying to justify the money they used to make even though it's easier for them in this digital age. There's nothing they can do top stop that other then going down the oppressive fascist way of restrictions and stopping the free transfer of information.

They're all doomed if they insist on trying to continue on as they have in the past and if they won't accept that they're idiots that deserve to fail.

RichieC · 14-02-2012 04:54PM

ScumLord wrote: »

The bottom line is that the internet has changed everything. Our old ways of doing things and making money just don't really make sense in a digital age. Companies are desperately trying to justify the money they used to make even though it's easier for them in this digital age. There's nothing they can do top stop that other then going down the oppressive fascist way of restrictions and stopping the free transfer of information.

They're all doomed if they insist on trying to continue on as they have in the past and if they won't accept that they're idiots that deserve to fail.

For governments and the corporations it's a case of better the divel you know. so the old media has an advantage in the halls of power.

ScumLord · 14-02-2012 05:03PM

RichieC wrote: »

For governments and the corporations it's a case of better the divel you know. so the old media has an advantage in the halls of power.

They're on a sinking ship convincing themselves it's not sinking. They're advantage is slipping and sooner or later it will be gone.

Temptamperu · 14-02-2012 05:06PM

I wonder, did town cryers ask for a bailout when Guggenheim invented the press?

ScumLord · 14-02-2012 05:09PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

I wonder, did town cryers ask for a bailout when Guggenheim invented the press?

Probably, people don't like realising they're on a sinking ship. It's a horrible feeling to think everything you trained for and worked towards is now defunct.

Dyr · 14-02-2012 05:17PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

I wonder, did town cryers ask for a bailout when Guggenheim invented the press?

They just got into politics, always a place for mouthpieces in that game :pac:

Fromthetrees · 15-02-2012 07:04AM

Newspapers are extremely popular in Ireland. According to the National Newspapers of Ireland and Joint National Readership Survey 91% of Irish adults regularly read newspapers [1]. The market penetration for daily newspapers runs at 190% and 350% for Sunday titles. For comparison, US newspaper market penetration is only 51%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Ireland#Newspapers

I think we need to find a balance between old and new media. I think both should compliment each other and eventually I think they will quite well, to the benefit of society as a whole. We are not even near this equilibrium yet but we will get there soon and having both in competition is a really healthy thing and I assume will create higher quality journalism and stories centered more around truth.

Oops I accidentally the whole civil society...

Comments